[ SECRET POST #2924 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2924 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #418.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If by "make them his own" you mean "piss all over the place until it smells like him", then yes.

Kubrick's contempt for source material is one of my issues with his canonization as a cinematic saint of some sort.

[cushlamochree]

I honestly don't see why it should be. I mean it is not good from the point of view of adaptation but I don't see why that should matter from the point of view of film. And his movies are pretty much always impressive, to say the least. I just don't think that's actually a flaw with his movies themselves I guess.

[othellia]

This. He made what he wanted to make.

[cushlamochree]

At a certain point you have to separate the adaptation from the original, really. They're just never going to be the same thing.

Ofc that's never stopped me from complaining about the LotR movies, but ah well, I'm a hypocrite.

[a_potato]

I can definitely see what you mean, and I understand your point. However, I think the way he treated his source material must be divorced from the way he treated the art of film-making. He was able to evoke emotion through mathematical precision (his framing is seriously ridiculous), and that's an achievement in and of itself.

[cushlamochree]

Eh well...

I mean, if I was going to criticize Kubrick, that's probably what I'd say - that his mathematical precision doesn't actually evoke emotion, that it's a cold, mechanical style of filmmaking and has difficulty rising above that

[a_potato]

Hmm.

It might be a different way of looking at the world? His framing speaks to me, and the fact that it's got a mathematical basis just makes it all the more thrilling. Perhaps Kubrick's limitation is that he can only appeal to a certain segment of the population, whereas other directors can tap into a broader spectrum.

[cushlamochree]

I mean I can certainly appreciate the quality of his framing and I think his movies are really phenomenal in a lot of ways. They're stupefyingly perfect. He's an amazing director for all that I'm criticizing him.

But his films don't ever go beyond impressive I guess. There's almost kind of... I don't know this is probably crazy but you almost think of neoclassical art, where it's all perfect technique and restraint and severity, which is a hell of an accomplishment but I've never felt it to be really complete. Ultimately you're probably right - it does just come down to a difference in sensibility and taste.